Spring football is here, and the annual ritual of college football analysts trying to predict who’s going to take a leap forward and who’s going to fall back has begun. One of the early indicators that is always interesting to see is returning production, a metric that attempts to quantify how much of last year’s production a team brings back heading into the new season, and this has obviously become a complex formula in the modern era. Bill Connelly at ESPN published his 2026 numbers this week, so we’ll examine the data through a garnet and gold lens.
FSU checks in at 48th nationally with 57% returning production, an even split between offense (57%) and defense (57%). The concept is easy enough to understand: the more continuity and experience you return from last season, the more likely you are to improve. However, it’s not a perfect science, and that certainly is not always the case. Before Nole fans read too much into the numbers, it’s worth understanding what returning production can and can’t tell you.
This Metric Has Limits
Last year’s headliner cautionary tale says a lot about how much this metric truly matters in the grand scheme of things. Clemson led the nation in returning production heading into 2025, which supported the preseason national title hype the Tigers garnered. But to Connelly’s point, a combination of injuries, tactical stagnation, and disappointing development held the Tigers back, and they slipped from 10-4 and 22nd in SP+ to 7-6 and 34th. The returning production looked great on paper, but the results clearly didn’t follow.
Returning production is, at its core, a measure of experience and continuity. What it cannot measure is whether that experience translated into quality and then into wins. A team that went 0-12 returning 100% of its production isn’t necessarily something to celebrate. Context matters enormously here, and for FSU, the context is important. The Noles went 5-7 last season. That’s the number to remember when it comes to interpreting their 57%. It’s all about the quality of talent you retain and how it progresses into wins the following year.
For a 5-7 Team, Turnover Was Needed
Honestly, you don’t want to return everything from a roster that produced the results we’ve seen in the past two years. That’s why Mike Norvell and the staff used this offseason to attempt to purge some of the dead weight from the roster and upgrade at several key spots through the transfer portal while keeping the pieces worth keeping.
A lot of production gets lost when you must replace your starting quarterback, and while this is no shot at Tommy Castellanos, I don’t think many of us would have chosen to bring him back for the sake of continuity. So, returning production can’t, and shouldn’t, always be taken at face value.
What makes this even more nuanced is how Connelly builds the formula. Incoming players’ previous production is folded into the returning production number. If your quarterback leaves and you bring in a transfer who was productive elsewhere, that dampens the blow of the departure. So, FSU’s 57% isn’t just a measure of holdovers. It reflects the production-weighted contribution of the portal additions, too.
In fairness, that is the harder number to qualify. Is a highly productive G5 or FCS transfer’s production at the lower level as valuable at the Power 4 level? Should it even be factored in? With all the movement that comes with the modern era of college football, this number feels more muddied than ever. But Connelly’s method is at least more of a complete picture than a simple headcount of returning starters. Fifty-seven percent, in that light, represents something closer to a healthy reset.
How FSU Stacks up vs the Competition
The ACC averages 55.3% returning production this year, which puts FSU a hair above the conference average. That’s not a commanding edge, but it’s not a deficit either. The Noles sit eighth in the ACC, meaning several conference opponents do come in with more continuity on their rosters, but several also fall short.
Looking at FSU’s actual 2026 schedule against the returning production table, five opponents return more production than the Noles do. SMU comes in at 62%, New Mexico State at 63%, Virginia at 59%, Pitt at 58%, and Florida at 66%. None of those are earth-shattering gaps, but they’re worth noting, particularly Florida and SMU, who are near the top of that group.
On the flip side, several of the marquee opponents on this schedule return less after seeing significant roster turnover from a year ago. Alabama sits at 48%, Miami at 49%, Louisville at 53%, Clemson at 53%, and Boston College at 50%. We know this is no easy schedule for FSU this year, but from a roster continuity standpoint, the Noles won’t be the least experienced team in many of those games.
Final Thoughts
One of the more striking data points in Connelly’s piece is just how much returning production has cratered nationally. In 2021, it sat at 76.7% overall. By 2025, it had slid all the way down to 53.7%, a new low, driven largely by the explosion in transfer portal activity. The volume of transfers has essentially restructured what these numbers mean. Notre Dame leads the nation in 2026 at 72%, a figure that would have ranked only seventh last year. Everything is compressed now.
In that context, FSU’s 57% is about average, both nationally and within the power conference landscape. Power Four schools average 58% returning production, and the Noles are right there. Not a program overloaded with proven, productive veterans, but not one heading into fall with major question marks at every position either.
The even split between offense and defense is worth noting, too. This isn’t a situation where one side of the ball is being rebuilt from scratch while the other carries the load. Both units have holes to fill and a foundation of returning production to work with, supplemented by offseason portal additions. Although the way it looks on paper is a little different than the actual story. For example, the offense and defense may be on equal footing in terms of cumulative experience, but the offense is replacing the entire starting offensive line and the starting quarterback. This illustrates how previous experience at other schools translates to the test.
My biggest question isn’t whether FSU has enough experience. It’s whether the experience they return is better than it was a year ago. That’s the part no spreadsheet can answer before the season arrives. Returning production tells you what you have. It doesn’t tell you what those players are going to do with another year in the system, another offseason in the weight room, and a coaching staff asking more of them.
In all honesty, I think FSU did a pretty good job of retaining most of the better pieces on this roster. They also made some solid additions with guys like Trey Wisner and Chris Jones, for example. However, it’s not a roster that’s loaded with future NFL talent, so they must rely on the returning production to put them ahead of where they were last year and hope the new additions were the missing pieces to the puzzle to make the leap they need to this year.
Fifty-seven percent is a decent foundation. Now it’s on the players and coaches to make something out of it. Thanks for reading and Go Noles!